It worked fine as a cameo, and that's all it needed to do. He was barely on the team because Whedon didn't have space to get more of him in there, not because his cameo was a cameo. Whedon said on the commentary that he originally had a full backstory for Hawkeye and he was a part of the team throughout the whole movie, but he had to chop it all out.

Hawkeye's my favorite Avenger and I'll be happy to see more of him in the sequels. But his role was fine in Avengers - he's a supporting character, and the movie was about the big guns getting together.

There's never going to be room in Avengers to give a character a full backstory. They're always going to need to be cut, and the person who we have no investment in is always the best option to cut, right? If you give them a supporting cast part in a solo film (or two) you can expand on them with relatively little screen time in Avengers, you get the full character with all the gravitas, cool dialogue moments and emotional climactic payoff, without needing to spend a team up film trying to develop them and inevitably failing.

His role was fine, no doubt, but it could have been better, maybe even great if he had been Coulson's go-to guy during Thor. Now, it's possible that that was the plan and Renner just wasn't available, if indeed his scene was clearly shot after the rest. If so, too bad. Still, not something I'd want to see from my fave Avenger. I would not enjoy the movie as much, just like I didn't enjoy the X-Men films. "They films are about Wolverine" does nothing to my deeprooted expectation that superhero team movies should be about the whole team. Same with Avengers.

In this case our investment is irrelevant. Whedon had to juggle four iconic superheroes and Black Widow, guy #6 is the one who would have gotten the short end, regardless of who it was.

The Thor scene appears exactly as written (the script leaked online a few months before they started shooting)

Team superhero movies should be about the team. Avengers was. Not every team member is on equal footing. There are leading characters and there are supporting characters. There are characters that drive a narrative forward and there are those who fill in the gaps, whether a film is about a singular character or a "team".

Where the X-Men films got it wrong was with the leading characters - Cyclops and Storm have no relevance to the overall structure of the films. Take them out and they're the same movies. It's Wolverine and occasionally Jean and the Prof versus Magneto. Marvel's merry band of mutants wasn't much of a band.

I don't think anyone's complaining that Iceman or Nightcrawler were supporting characters in those movies. At least, I hope not.

Complaining? No. Hoping for more from, absolutely. Even with Nightcrawler and Iceman helping drive the story in X2, even when they weren't part of the team.

What I'm saying is that a short stick can go a long way with an established character. I think in a team film, all the team members should drive the plot forward, some more than others naturally, but the story should be constructed with the whole team in mind, otherwise it's doesn't represent the characters well.

With Hawkeye, had he been established, he could have been given little tics and wavers that would have mattered and been recognized as part of his character. He could have had a soul during his being controlled. He could even have been given one or two minutes screen time extra that would have been productive instead of requiring ten or fifteen minutes for basic backstory to do anything with him.

In this case our investment is irrelevant. Whedon had to juggle four iconic superheroes and Black Widow, guy #6 is the one who would have gotten the short end, regardless of who it was.

The Thor scene appears exactly as written (the script leaked online a few months before they started shooting)

Team superhero movies should be about the team. Avengers was. Not every team member is on equal footing. There are leading characters and there are supporting characters. There are characters that drive a narrative forward and there are those who fill in the gaps, whether a film is about a singular character or a "team".

Where the X-Men films got it wrong was with the leading characters - Cyclops and Storm have no relevance to the overall structure of the films. Take them out and they're the same movies. It's Wolverine and occasionally Jean and the Prof versus Magneto. Marvel's merry band of mutants wasn't much of a band.

I don't think anyone's complaining that Iceman or Nightcrawler were supporting characters in those movies. At least, I hope not.

It worked fine as a cameo, but it didn't serve the character very well. He was barely introduced, and so it positioned him to be barely on the team, a sort of narrative scapegoat. I'd want more than than from a favorite Avenger.

See, I think that angle worked well and was a nice nod to Clints comic origin. He started out as a semi-villain before joining the avengers in the comics and he did so in the movies. It also was a nod to Avengers #1 with the mind controlled hero who would become one of the founding members. The just substituted Hulk with Barton.

__________________

It wasn't Marvel Studios that made me a Marvel Zombie, it was every other movie studio failing at making superhero movies as good as them! ------------------------------

I really hope they make a solo-movie for a female superhero/comic-book character by the time they get to phase 3. I would love to see a movie for Spider-Woman, Ms. Marvel and She Hulk. I don't think there would be a solo movie for Black Widow because they already her introduced in MCU in 2010 and there's still no plans for a solo movie.

I really hope they make a solo-movie for a female superhero/comic-book character by the time they get to phase 3. I would love to see a movie for Spider-Woman, Ms. Marvel and She Hulk. I don't think there would be a solo movie for Black Widow because they already her introduced in MCU in 2010 and there's still no plans for a solo movie.

Well out of those three, She-Hulk is the most interesting and the easiest to introduce

__________________

It wasn't Marvel Studios that made me a Marvel Zombie, it was every other movie studio failing at making superhero movies as good as them! ------------------------------

I don't have some grand vision for Phase 3 and beyond the way some of you guys do, though I do want to see Black Panther, Doctor Strange, Namor, and Ms. Marvel movies come to fruition at some point in the future, if only for the idea that Marvel should continue to be that ballsy and confident in incorporating their "more-difficult-to-adapt" characters into the MCU.

Now that Ant-Man has been scheduled for November 2015, what I am thinking about specifically is what we'll see directly afterwards in 2016. It's exciting to think that at two (or more) points in time this year--one of which will most likely be in July at SDCC--we could be getting announcements for the two (or more) movies that Marvel will be releasing in 2016!

I would love for the first 2016 movie to be a Hulk sequel (I like the idea of Mark Ruffalo is getting older. If they intend to use him effectively, a Hulk sequel should come sooner rather than later. Plus, there will have been TEN MCU movies between it and TIH! We need us some more Hulk!

For the second movie, I would love to see a new franchise like Black Panther or Doctor Strange, but I could see them going with Cap 3. They would be pulling a Thor (3 movies in 3 consecutive years), but releasing Cap 3 in November 2016 would be about the same spacing as Thor, Avengers, and Thor: The Dark World. Plus, it is both an election year and an Olympics year... so go USA!

I don't believe for a second Szostak is playing Wasp. Still betting on Bethany Cabe myself.

But I do think Whedon might add Wasp to Avengers 2 anyway. I mean he apparently really wanted her in the first film already. And now that Ant-Man is finally going into production and has a release date in the same year as Avengers even, he could easily introduce Wasp in A2 first only to have her character further developed in the Ant-Man film later. It could possibly even be a prequel to Avengers 2.

I don't believe for a second Szostak is playing Wasp. Still betting on Bethany Cabe myself.

But I do think Whedon might add Wasp to Avengers 2 anyway. I mean he apparently really wanted her in the first film already. And now that Ant-Man is finally going into production and has a release date in the same year as Avengers even, he could easily introduce Wasp in A2 first only to have her character further developed in the Ant-Man film later. It could possibly even be a prequel to Avengers 2.

Yeah, I don't think the casting for Janet Van Dyne would have happened so discreetly and so quickly.

As for the idea of Ant-Man being a prequel, I suppose in terms of the narrative it might make sense, but I don't know how well it would go over with the audience. It's kind of like saying, "Hey look, here's the origin of a guy who didn't show up in either Avengers or Avengers 2, but his girlfriend did in Avengers 2, so we're setting the movie to take place before Avengers 2 and you know she won't die."

I don't know about having prequels for the MCU at this point (Cap doesn't count because you didn't see him in the present-day until after). Every phase seems to be driving a narrative forward. To use a film to go backwards in that narrative and not really add to it seems kind of pointless.

Well out of those three, She-Hulk is the most interesting and the easiest to introduce

The two new franchises we know of that Marvel is going to produce are Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man. I don't know if "ease of introducing a character" is the first thing they are questioning when it comes to which heroes they are going to adapt to film next. That said, D'Esposito did bring up that very thought with Black Panther, which is lame.

She-Hulk is perhaps the most ill-conceived character ever. The reason she was created -- to protect Marvel's copyright on The Hulk -- is why her origin is so completely ridiculous. It's like something out of a 1950s scifi movie, complete with a radioactive blood transfusion. And the name is almost too corny and cliched for words. Maybe Marvel can find a way to use She-Hulk without the hackneyed name and origin, but even then a 7-foot-tall green female version of the Hulk is going to be a very hard concept to sell. Harder than a talking raccoon and sentient tree, even.

I'm surprised that no one has picked up on what Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje said about talking to Marvel about another project after Thor: TDW. AAA has long been on the record as interested in starring in a Black Panther picture. He first approached Marvel about the possibility back in 2009.

Frankly, I think he would be perfect in every way for the Black Panther. The fact that he plays Kurse/Algrim shouldn't be a problem since his face will be unrecognizable under the prosthetics and costume he will be wearing.

Quote:

The nice thing about running into "Thor: The Dark World" actor Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje recently is that he had so much to say about the experience and his happy relationship with Marvel that we are even more intrigued about his dual roles in the film, as well as what the future might hold for his appearing in more Marvel movies.

Maybe he's circling some work in "Guardians of the Galaxy," maybe not. But the character he's still the most passionate about is T'Challa, if a "Black Panther" movie ever happens.

"Who do I want to play him? Myself, let’s be real," Akinnuoye-Agbaje told MTV News with a smile, when asked if he is still carrying the torch for the role. "I would hope that playing Kurse would ingratiate me to becoming the Panther. You get in and have success in one, and you go and do the next one. [My campaign] is definitely not dropped."

"He’s one of my faves. I would love to play him," he continued. "You have to keep at it, you have to keep your card in the hat and see what comes out but I have to say I’m thrilled, I’ve been able to play two characters in one movie and if [Marvel] likes this and it this does well, it just gives you a better chance."